Liverpool's fate will be decided by a high- court judge tomorrow morning after a dramatic day of evidence on which two rival offers emerged to the one that has been accepted by the club's board.

As lawyers for the current co-owners, Tom Hicks and George Gillett, argued against those representing the club and its principal lender, the Royal Bank of Scotland, inside court and fans demonstrated outside, it also emerged that:

• The Singaporean billionaire Peter Lim had made an improved offer that was instantly relayed to the court. It is worth £320m in cash, plus £40m for transfers.

• Mill Financial, the US hedge fund understood to have assumed control of Gillett's stake in the club after he defaulted on a loan, was also said to be interested in buying the club and was said to have offered to clear Liverpool's debts and commit up to £100m to building a new stadium.

• Hicks and Gillett had launched a counter-claim against the Liverpool board and RBS in an attempt to slow down the process and postpone the club's proposed £300m sale to New England Sports Ventures, the owners of the Boston Red Sox.

After a full day of sometimes spiky exchanges and dense legal argument Mr Justice Floyd told a packed courtroom that he would return tomorrow morning to deliver his verdict. RBS and Liverpool's chairman, Martin Broughton, who was brought in by the bank to oversee the sale of the club, are confident that their claim for breach of contract will succeed. The bank is seeking a ruling that Hicks and Gillett breached a contract signed when they refinanced in April, giving Broughton the power to appoint the board and effective control of the sale process.

In giving evidence Hicks admitted for the first time that the undertakings given to RBS were breached when he and Gillett attempted to dissolve the board and reconstitute it with directors favourable to their cause. However his QC, Paul Girolami, argued that they had no choice because they had been frozen out of the sale process by Broughton, the chief executive, Christian Purslow, and the commercial director, Ian Ayre.

Richard Snowden QC, representing RBS, accused Hicks of "breathtaking arrogance" and said that it was "as clear a breach of contract as you will ever see". He repeatedly tried to return to the nub of the claim – RBS's insistence that the breach of contract should be reversed and the club's board reconstituted, to allow the sale to proceed. Hicks, in his evidence, suggested that the "English directors", who he said secretly referred to themselves as the "home team", had kept information from Gillett and himself and rushed through a sale to NESV when other parties would pay more. He said: "What has happened is that the English directors have gone forward with the NESV bid without properly considering alternatives when those alternatives at least appear to give better prospects."

In his witness statement, seen by the Guardian, Hicks describes at length his fears that Broughton, Ayre and Purslow were keeping things from him and Gillett: "I was very troubled and extremely concerned by the reference to a 'home team'. It appeared to me that the English directors regarded themselves as being in a position of hostility or competition with me and Mr Gillett."

Hicks says he and Gillett had "effectively been kept in the dark" and that "it seemed to us there were other offers which were being excluded". He claims that Broughton and the board rushed to do a deal with NESV, despite Mill Financial having prepared a better offer. The Liverpool board and RBS strongly dispute Hicks's version of events.

The suggestion that Hicks and Gillett were frozen out was rubbished by Lord Grabiner QC, acting for the club, and Snowden. The "home team" reference was merely shorthand for the board in sale negotiations, they said.

Philip Marshall QC, acting for the club on company law issues, said the board had narrowed down a field of 130 inquiries – from which 27 firm expressions of interest had arisen – with the advice of Barclays Capital and had accepted the best offer.

Mill Financial is said to have £400m in liquid equity and to have offered to clear the club's debts, inject working capital and invest in a new stadium. But lawyers for the club said its interest had gone no further once it knew it could not enter into exclusive negotiations.

Lim's public release of a letter sent to the Liverpool board, as court proceedings began, could be seen to aid the argument of Hicks and Gillett. "I believe that, if its massive debt burden can be removed, the club would be able to focus on improving its performance on the pitch," said Lim. "If the board accepts this offer, the monies are available immediately thereby removing the threat of administration."

It was also confirmed for the first time that RBS is owed 75% of the outstanding £237m loan and the rest is owed to Wells Fargo. There is also at least £40m in fees outstanding. RBS argued that a speedy judgment was crucial because the loans are due to be repaid on Friday. Girolami argued that the threat of administration was an empty one because the bank had other instruments at its disposal.

NESV has until 1 November to complete its deal. RBS said it wanted a return on its loan and it was up to Liverpool whether it reactivated the auction process. Lawyers for NESV said in court it would seek damages if the deal fell apart.

The club is seeking its own declaratory judgment to allow the sale to proceed, which it launched last night. This could become superfluous if the decision goes the way of RBS tomorrow.

"The next 72 hours are crucial. Whichever side Mr Justice Floyd comes down on, the matter will not end with his decision. There are a number of subplots that still need to be played out before Friday, and beyond. Indeed, should the court rule that the board are entitled to sell, then it will have to give due consideration to Mr Lim's bid, should the due diligence prove it to be viable," said Andrew Nixon, a partner at Thomas Eggar LLP Sports Group.

"The apparently pre-agreed deal with NESV, and NESV's rights to enforce any agreement, could then come under the spotlight. Further, in the event that the sale proceeds, and Hicks and Gillett remain of the view that the Club has been sold at undervalue, they may consider bringing a claim for damages against the board."